The High Court made an interim safety order for a wife after finding that her husband’s conduct had adversely affected her welfare. The judge found that her safety was not at risk and did not make a barring order.
The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson on 16 February 2024, arose from interim applications in wider judicial separation proceedings. The wife sought a barring order or, alternatively, a safety order, along with orders about the couple’s children. The husband sought protection and safety orders against her and orders concerning access and decisions about the children. The court had earlier made an ex parte safety order for the wife on 12 December 2023.
The parties, who married in 1999, have two teenage children. The judge said both had close relationships with the children and had played hands-on roles in their care. The judgment records that the husband’s extra-marital relationships and illegal drug use were not disputed, though the parties disagreed about how frequent the drug use was. He undertook to undergo regular testing from December 2023; the reported results were negative. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had complied with his undertaking to refrain from illegal or irregular drug use.
The wife said she feared her husband and alleged volatile and abusive behaviour. The judge found that the evidence did not support claims of “persistent and insidious assaults”. She considered the parties’ arguments to be bilateral, noted that ordinary family life had continued for a substantial period, and found that some of the wife’s actions did not support a belief that her safety was at risk. She also found, on the balance of probabilities, that there had been a physical altercation involving the wife and the husband.
The judge found the husband careless of the wife’s welfare and said his attitude to his behaviour was “naïve, dismissive and somewhat arrogant”. She said his actions had adversely affected the wife’s welfare, particularly given her previous illness. She found that his substance abuse had affected the family primarily indirectly and did not find that the wife’s safety had been put at risk.
The court made a safety order for the wife pending further order, covering the three elements of relief under the legislation. Email correspondence to a dedicated address was permitted for arrangements concerning the children. The judge accepted the husband’s undertaking to live away from the family home except when exercising access. Access was made subject to negative drug testing using hair or urine samples as appropriate; a positive result would end access and trigger the undertaking to remain away from the home.
The judge directed that decisions about the children be made jointly and that each parent keep the other informed of important information. She set deadlines for further affidavits and financial documents, listed the case for management on 19 April 2024, and reserved costs to the hearing of the action. The applications were interim matters within the wider proceedings; the judgment did not determine the substantive separation case.